Down To Earth

Editorial. Sunita Narain.
VII.XII.XV

ALTERNATIVE
PARIS

by Sunita
Narain

I wrote
last about what I expect will happen at the Paris
climate change conference. But what should happen?
First, the world must strongly underscore the need
to keep the temperature rise below 2°C at the
very least. Today, with less than 1°C rise,
the world is beginning to experience deadly
impacts.

In India, we are seeing
weird weather, extreme rainfall events and highly
variable temperatures that have become the bane of
agriculture, destroying crops and causing deep
distress. Clearly, even 2°C rise will be too
much, but promising anything more ambitious would
be delusional. It would mean greatly increasing
the rate of emission reduction by the already
industrialised countries which is crucial but
highly unlikely.

Current emission
reduction plans on the table, called Intended
Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC), do not
add up. Even the UN accepts that the aggregate
impact of all the plans will result in a 2.7°C
rise.

Our analysis shows this
is a gross underestimate and that the rise could
be well above 3°C. This is when the burden of
transition has shifted—analysis of INDC
shows clearly that the already industrialised, who
have historical responsibility to cut emissions,
are doing one-fifth of their share.

The developing world is
taking on this action. Secondly, all must agree
that countries will increase their level of
ambition to cut emissions and that this reduction
will be based on the fair share of the global
carbon budget.

This is because
arresting the rise in temperature means agreeing
to how much carbon dioxide can be emitted between
1870 and 2100. There is a direct correlation
between temperature increase and quantum of
emissions that can fill up the atmosphere.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, to keep the world below 2°C,
with a 66 per cent probability, the budget is some
2,900 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide between
1870 and 2100. Paris agreement must accept that
all countries have the right to development and
that this requires equitable sharing of the global
carbon budget. Of the 2,900 billion tonnes of
carbon dioxide, some 1,900 billion tonnes have
been used up—this amount of carbon dioxide
is already accumulated in the
atmosphere.

There are some 1,000
billion tonnes left, which can be emitted between
now and 2100.

But there are two other
facts to be noted. One, that the already
industrialised countries have overused their
carbon quota. But more importantly, their lack of
ambition means they will continue to
surreptitiously appropriate even more of the
budget. The US, for instance, has already used up
some 21 per cent of the total carbon budget.
Between now and 2030, as per its lacklustre INDC,
it will take up another 8 per cent. In this way
the INDC is not just a country’s commitment
to reduce emissions, it is its intention to occupy
global carbon space.

Two, by 2030, according
to the current emission targets on the table, some
80 per cent of the carbon budget will be used up.
In other words, what is available to the world to
use up to 2100 will be nearly finished by 2030.
This would be fine if all countries were at equal
levels of development and would not require any
space for growth beyond 2030. But this is hardly
the case. India and almost all of Africa, even
under the most aggressive plans for growth, would
still be struggling to meet the basic needs of
people beyond 2030.

But by then the
carbon budget would be all appropriated and
gone.

What happens to
their right to development? So, thirdly, and most
crucially, Paris must agree to operationalise
equity by accepting that the level of effort of
each country’s INDC will be equal to its
share of the global carbon budget. Anything less
would be development apartheid. Anything less
would be gross climate injustice.

Fourthly, to
ensure ambition and also operationalise equity, it
must agree that it will “stocktake”
the commitments made by countries. These
commitments must ensure that the world stays below
2°C rise and reflect the equitable sharing of
the global carbon budget.

Fifthly, the Paris
agreement must recognise that it is the
world’s poor who are worst hit, even though
they are least responsible for the emissions that
are leading the world to a climate precipice. The
current draft only has some broad statements about
the need for all governments to build resilient
systems to adapt to climate change. This must
change to protect the interests of the poorest and
to ensure that not only is the loss and damage
estimated but payment is made.

Finally, Paris must
build the framework for future action, real and
meaningful, to combat climate change. To do this
it must identify key actions that can be supported
through global funding—not ways in which aid
is passed off as climate support—to make the
transition towards low-carbon growth.

The best way to share
the limited carbon budget is if countries find
ways not to use the space at all.